Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Hillary Clinton insults the rest of us

By


According to published reports today, Hillary Clinton says she is sorry that “the email scandal is confusing to people” (emphasis mine):

Hillary Clinton sat down Friday for a rare national television interview, a move that could have allowed her to sail into the holiday weekend, reclaiming a bad week of headlines about the vexing email scandal that has overshadowed her campaign and unsettled even ardent supporters.
…
“I disagree with the choice that I made,” she explained. “At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people.”
…

Say WHAT?

I am not “confused”, and I am frankly insulted by her insinuation that I am.

Her claims that she sent no classified material are already being countered by growing evidence from the State Department that they are false.

Worse, her answers miss the most important point. We already know that the server she used did not have even the most elementary protections against intrusions. Because of that, there is no way to even KNOW whether the account was compromised or by whom. She used this account while in China, and we already know that her server had no certificate during that visit.

This isn’t just leaving the doors unlocked, it’s packing the valuables of the house in a suitcase on the kitchen table and posting signs all over the city given directions and an inventory.

It’s bad enough that she did this. It’s bad enough that she hasn’t found a way to acknowledge the gravity of her blunder. Calling people like me who DO understand the implications of this “confused” is just beyond the pale.

I have to say that her handling of this is making me increasingly suspect of her judgement NOW, never mind when all this happened. A would-be president should know better.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • I mean that in March of this year, the lack of a security certificate was published in the mainstream media. That lapse was discussed here on BMG in late August. The lapse was significant, was published, and was discussed less than a month ago on BMG.

      That’s what I mean by “we” already know that the server she used did not have even the most elementary protections against intrusions.

  2. I get that your extra sensitive because it’s your line of work, but she followed the law and has been backed up regarding that point. She even had 1200 emails returned to her by the State Department as not related to work because she was erring on the major side of caution regarding what to turn over. Do you really think any of this would have been allowed if the server was even suspected, let alone known, to have the security vulnerabilities you allege?

    What IS confusing to me is how something can be not classified when sent, but classified later. Isn’t that trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped? I’d like to see a cite for your allegation that she lied about classified information. I’m also concerned about the couple of times she said, “I didn’t think…” or “I wasn’t thinking…” since I can easily see those lines snipped out of context in an opposition ad.

    I watched the interview on MSNBC so I can vouch that the reporting of it you cite is accurate, but let’s please leave the innuendo and aspersions to the Benghazi Committee, or as one commentator said it should more accurately be titled, “The Committee to Destroy Clinton’s Chances of Becoming President”.

    • The lapse is not something I “allege”, it has been widely documented (see my response to bob-gardner above).

      That lapse has nothing to do with whether or not classified material was sent on her server. It instead has to do with the security of her server itself. I have not seen any pieces disputing the lack of a security certificate (not surprisingly, since it’s a matter of public record).

      My employer is the vendor selected to pick up the pieces after the personal information of more than 25 million federal employees was stolen from the federal government’s HR system. The fact that the State Department returned some emails to her is truthy and irrelevant. I certainly hope that the security arrangements of the Pentagon, the Office of the President, the Secretary of State, and so on are better than the hodge-podge of the OPM. Nevertheless, cherry-picking actions of the State Department is not convincing (at least to me).

      I call your attention to this paragraph from the politico story cited in the thread-starter (emphasis mine):

      This week underscored the threat, with Monday delivering headlines that dozens more of Clinton’s emails had been deemed classified, as State Department readied its largest release to date of her messages. The end of the week wasn’t much better — longtime Clinton confidant and chief of staff Cheryl Mills went before the committee behind closed doors on Thursday, for example, just hours after news broke that another of Clinton’s one-time aides, Bryan Pagliano, would plead the Fifth and refuse to answer questions when it came time for his own appearance.

      The legality or illegality of specific documents is irrelevant to the much larger issue of who had hidden access to her server, what malware they did or did not install on it, and what they did or did not do with that access. Malware identified by consumer products like Norton Anti-Virus does not destroy Iranian centrifuges or deliver millions of federal personnel records to bad guys. It is the malware that is NOT picked up that is dangerous. That’s why basic protections like security certificates are vital.

      There is no reliable way to know what malware may have been present on her server (that’s how breaches like the OPM breach happen!). The Ashley-Madison breach demonstrates that simply knowing someone’s email address, never mind other personal information, can be devastating in the wrong hands. With or without “classified” documents on her server, her address book was certainly there. It would not be surprising if phone numbers (especially “private” cellphone numbers), street addresses, and “alternate contact” (mistresses and such) information was there as well. Those “personal” communications yield all sorts of valuable information (as Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn are well aware — such information is a vital revenue stream for them).

      You may not know what the squiggles of your ECG mean. When a cardiologist says they mean you’ve had a mild heart attack, do you dismiss that as “innuendo” and “aspersions”? Do you ignore your cardiologist because he or she is “extra sensitive” because it is his or her “line of work”?

      I implore you to dial back your own rhetoric. This is not “innuendo” and “aspersions”, it is well-documented and established fact. On the other hand, what IS innuendo is characterizing people like me who understand the implications of these facts as “confused”.

      • …Mills has asked that the complete transcript of her testimony be released and it is the committee chair who is balking on that count. Again, I find it extremely difficult to believe that any of this would have been allowed if the server were as vulnerable as you suggest. I assume you have not had the opportunity to study this particular server and actually diagnose whatever problems it may have whereas MY cardiologist would be looking at MY EKG reading. This is more like Sen. Bill Frist, MD falling back on his medical background to “diagnose” Terri Schiavo without her actually being his patient.

        • My understanding of ECGs is that they show, to the trained eye, evidence of heart muscle damage. While understanding when and how the damage occurred may require an individual appointment, the existence of the damage does not.

          What you find “difficult to believe” has been published for some time now. The research was done by Venafi, a reasonably well-respected security firm. That company, experts in the field, most certainly did diagnose this patient. The same company offers additional insight into how digital certificates are used and misused.

          Here is what Venafi actually says about the email server in question (emphasis mine):

          3-month gap before encryption enabled for browsers, smartphones, and tablets starting in 2009

          Venafi TrustNet is the world’s first enterprise certificate reputation service. TrustNet can identify certificate misuse, perform forensic analysis, and predict vulnerabilities that need to be fixed to protect the Global 5000 and governments. To achieve this, TrustNet has acquired, maintains, and is continuously adding to the world’s largest database of digital certificates and associated metadata. TrustNet is able to go back in time and identify how digital certificates were used in the past, providing a new type of forensics capability to the IT security community.

          Digital certificates and their corresponding cryptographic keys are incredibly powerful. They solved the biggest barriers to using the Internet: how do I know that a website is what it says it is and that communications with the site are private? But this is also why certificates are so interesting to bad guys for misuse. It’s also why cybersecurity experts, like Intel, predict stolen certificates will be the next big hacker marketplace. With this increasing misuse by attackers, how do we keep certificates safe? Venafi protects the trust established by keys and certificates for the Global 5000 and governments.

          Digital certificate analysis for clintonemail.com

          In the past week, there have been questions about the level of security, use, and configuration of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server. Specifically, there have been concerns that the server may have been vulnerable to eavesdropping and compromise. TrustNet found that at least 3 digital certificates were used with clintonemail.com since 2009. Operators of clintonemail.com obtained these certificates so the site could be uniquely distinguished (another clintonemail.com would not show as being secured without the certificate) and the site would use strong encryption to keep data transmissions private. These certificates were obtained validly and enabled web-based encryption for applications. Based on TrustNet analyst, Venafi can conclude clintonemail.com was enabled for browser, smartphone, and tablet encryption since 2009 and can operate using encryption through at least 2018. However, for the first 3 months of Secretary Clinton’s term, access to the server was not encrypted or authenticated with a digital certificate. During this time, Secretary Clinton travelled to China, Egypt, Israel, South Korea and other locations outside of the U.S.

          Note: All data in this report was obtained by non-intrusive Internet scanning routinely performed throughout the IT security community to protect the safety and health of the Internet.

          If you want to say “I hear your concern and I don’t care”, that’s one thing — we’re all welcome to make our own choices about priorities. To instead claim “You’re confused”, “you don’t know enough about this situation to have a valid opinion”, or “it didn’t happen at all” is not legitimate.

          What you are doing is denial, just as the GOP denies climate change. You are steadfastly refusing to believe what compelling evidence shows, based on your own bias. You are attacking those like me who confront your denial. This combination of denial and insult comes across as arrogance, and it plays a significant role in why Ms. Clinton’s polling negatives continue to climb.

          We all have a right to our opinion. We do not have a right to our facts.

          • …but I don’t know what you are construing as an insult or attack because I certainly didn’t mean that. I’m baffled that State or any other government entity would not insist on the highest levels of security for a server, but even if that is the case that’s an institutional failing rather than personal on the part of Clinton. I do wish we’d adopt the Democratic equivalent of Reagan’s 11th commandment.

            • lies in “sorry I confused people.” Tom is (I assume) feeling that (1) she is referring to him and (2) not confused; on that score it is a condescending remark,

              But what if she isn’t referring to him and what if some people are confused? There are an outspoken lot of people who seem to think this has to do with hiding secret evil doing. Tom, do you think she was doing that?

              There are not many people incensed about the lack of a certificate for this server, which is Tom’s big criticism. Tom, do you think more people ought to be concerned about that side of things? Might the people who are not concerned be “confused”?

              • I do not think Ms. Clinton is hiding any secret “evil doing”.

                I do think that people should be more concerned about contempt she and her team shows for basic security procedures. I think more people ought to be concerned about that, especially when it’s laid out for them.

                I think that “confused” is a gracious characterization of those who see the facts and who refuse to admit what those facts mean about a person who would be president.

    • What if it turned out that Barack Obama’s birth certificate WAS forged? What if the CIA actually DID coordinate the 9/11 WTC attacks?

      Your complaint that I echo the Benghazi committee is greatly weakened, in my view, if serious abuses actually DID occur.

      I join you in dismissing the garbage about Barack Obama and 9/11 because the evidence clearly shows that there is absolutely ZERO truth in those accusations.

      Sadly, this is simply not the case with the Hillary Clinton email server.

        • Humor aside, the various right-wing crackpot groups are readily dismissed because their claims are so flagrantly groundless. If a “smoking gun” with Ms. Clinton’s fingerprints and DNA, registered to Ms. Clinton, were found at the scene of Vince Foster’s death, it would be far more difficult to dismiss her involvement. I am NOT saying that she was — and am instead saying that I feel confident in dismissing the bizarre Vince Foster claims because they are totally unsupported by all evidence.

          I agree that many, even most, of the Benghazi “investigation” is just another season of the Ken Starr show.

          The abysmal lack of security of Ms. Clinton’s personal email server, and her use of it for ALL her email communication (both personal and government), is a different and significant issue.

          • I have felt that you have been a bit to … (hmm, how to say this?) … strung out about this issue, but only through reading your comments here did I hear that she was using that unsecured server and cellphone for even the State Dept emails. That’s something I’d not read in a previous reading of the reports, and those claims as well, I’ll need to confirm.

            Given her carelessness though, I’m left seriously wondering if her password was some derivation of “password”, “abcabc”, “abc123”, “BILL”, “chelseanumber1”, “pres45”, “clinton2016”,…

            I’m not even really trying to make jokes this time, but with all her talk of “inconvenience” – the same person who told us she was the one who would be ready for an emergency at 4am, whether one concludes it was because she was careless or willfully opaque, neither suggests a complete respect for the office, and either one on it’s own is concerning about someone running for president.

            • Her use of an unsecured personal server for ALL of her email traffic (personal and State Department alike) has been greatly underplayed by the mainstream media.

              For example, the fusillade of stories about other officials (such as Colin Powell) doing “the same” make no mention of the crucial difference — only Ms. Clinton used her personal server exclusively (the keyword being “exclusively”).

              For example, there is a great deal of noise and only a little signal in this 13-Aug-2015 Newsweek piece (emphasis mine):

              A little less than two years later, on March 2, 2015, The New York Times reported that Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state “may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.”
              …
              Plus, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill argues, Clinton didn’t break any rules because “for government business,” she had used her State Department colleagues’ official government addresses. Copies of those emails would therefore be retained by the State Department, Merrill said, which satisfies the requirements of the Federal Records Act as it was written when Clinton was secretary:

              “Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained,” Merrill said in a statement.

              The NYT reported her exclusive use of her server in March of 2015. Her own spokesperson — Nick Merril — says, on the record, that she used this server exclusively for both personal and official emails.

              The evidence that this same server was completely unsecured during the first three months of her use of it (including while she was in China on official business!) is more recent.

              Without ascribing malice, the motivation seems clear enough to me. From the above Newsweek piece (emphasis mine):

              Had Clinton used a State Department address for email, her communications would presumably be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. They could then be requested by journalists or other members of the public. However, since Clinton used a private server, which is not subject to the FOIA, journalists won’t be able to request them.

              The Clinton family was besieged by big-spending right-wing crackpots like Richard Mellon Scaife, the GOP and right-wing media during the administration of her husband. At that time, she accurately characterized her attackers as a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. Ms. Clinton is an attorney, spoke on the record, and knew exactly what she was saying. She was correct, and — though ridiculed for it — was one of only a handful of voices courageous enough to publicly identify the cabal.

              I therefore have great empathy for and understanding of her desire to zealously guard against a recurrence of a Ken Starr-like assault.

              Still, as events have shown, the assault happened anyway. Benghazi did not go away, and her choice only added to the fervor.

              My concern is about the priorities and values this whole sorry episode reveals. As legitimate and real as the Clinton family concerns were (and are), they are still private concerns. When she chose to use that unsecured personal email server for ALL her official communications as Secretary of State, she endangered national security. That is a public concern.

              I do not yet see evidence, in the Clinton campaign’s handling of this matter, that Ms. Clinton or the campaign has in any way revisited these fundamental priorities and values.

              In my view, issues of national security trump ALL personal concerns — as Secretary of State and especially as President. I am profoundly uncomfortable with a would-be President who shows no evidence of sharing this value assessment.

              I am NOT saying that a GOP president would be better or that there is no difference between Ms. Clinton and any of the the GOP candidates.

              I am saying that I want our next president to value national security above ALL personal concerns.

              • Tom is obviously more knowledgeable than most of us about this and his concern is very real. The idea that she was fourth in line to BE President and was allowed to set up the way she did shows a systemic lax attitude but also a personal lapse on Hillarys’ part. She admits to being a dinosaur in the digital age (as do I) but that would make me even more concerned that I have really important information and I want the NSA, CIA, looking at every e-mail I send and how I sent it.
                Hillary could have used this as a plus. Instead of saying I did what was allowed, she could have owned the moment, said “I was wrong” and called for a review of governmental internet security. The recent hacks of the IRS, Ashley Madison, Target all show how vulnerable we are. I know some companies who took such simple steps as ordering computers with no USB ports. I assume we have them but when we read about North Korea having a special “Internet Army Squadron” I worry that we are not taking the Battlefield of the Future (Cyberspace) seriously enough.

              • …you have hit upon one reason I circled the wagons so quickly. In my 20+ years of observing politics one thing I have learned is that when it comes to the Clintons, we should give no quarter to any opposition other than that based on legitimate public policy disagreements.

                I also start with a different set of assumptions. Rather than question her judgement based on what sounds a little fishy I start by trusting her judgement and assume she personally probably, and the State Dept. as an institution definitely know better than I do how this should have been handled.

    • Chris – it has to do with the process by which information is deemed classified.

      Information is examined by the State Department and it’s security is categorized. Clinton operated outside the Department for emails. Hence, her correspondence could not be classified.

      So she told the truth when she stated that she never sent classified material. She prevented it from happening. Now that the State Department had been allowed to see it, it has been determined to be sensitive and important and it has been deemed classified.

      She never said that she never sent confidential or sensitive or dangerous information via insecure email – she just said she never sent classified material. And her cavalier and selfish behavior made certain of that.

      • I have come around to the view that any failing on this matter rests with the department and not with her.

        • ….why is it being classified retroactively now?

          All those right-wingers Kerry hired for State?

        • It appears to me that you’ve been desperately seeking any path that absolves Ms. Clinton of any blunder. I don’t see any “coming around” needed — instead, it appears that you’ve just picked somebody else to false blame.

              • The State Department apparently allowed this to happen. If you are going to accuse someone of a crime the burden is on you.

                • The Secretary of State decides to circumvent the government communication systems and operate her own unsupervised empire, taking away their ability to review and classify documents for her own political purposes. And it’s their fault.

                  Mind you, it is the kind of leak that an Edward Snowden SHOULD have made to alert the country, but that is another matter. Anybody else would be looking at a career ending move against a notoriously vengeful politician.

                  I would like to know how you think they could have prevented her.

                  And all the poor Hillary Whitewater-Rose Law apologies floating around? She was’t worried about the Vast Right Wing conspiracy embarrassing her. She was worried about Obama and Rahm using her as a scapegoat by leaking details if anything went wrong, or trying to hurt her politically down the road. Of course, just because you’really paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

                • I agree with you that this was her blunder, and there was little the State Department could have done.

                  I think you’re off in GOP la-la-land in your last paragraph.

                  The Ken Starr “investigation” was a crude abuse of government power and taxpayer funding by an out-of-control GOP. There’s more than enough hard data to explain why Ms. Clinton rightfully anticipated a similar witch hunt as she assumed the office of Secretary of State. I think the entire Benghazi foolishness confirms the accuracy of her assessment.

                  I think her decision to exclusively use a personal server was a blunder, and was the wrong way to address the right-wing attack that she feared.

                  I don’t see how anyone with a three-digit IQ can look at continuing harassment from an out-of-control GOP regarding Benghazi and suggest that Ms. Clinton was “worried about Obama and Rahm using her as a scapegoat by leaking details if anything went wrong”.

                  She was rightfully worried about a repeat of the Ken Starr abuses, and that’s exactly what has happened and is still going on (when they aren’t too busy trying to destroy women’s health services).

                • Edward Snowden says Hillary Clinton ‘ridiculous’ to think emails were secure

                  “This is a problem,” Snowden said, “because anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of state has, or the director of any top-level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled.”

                  He added: “If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the CIA … were sending details about the security of embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it.”

                • I don’t know about you, but if I’m new to a job and people from my employer who have been there longer and are supposed to know company policy explain to me that certain things are allowed under company policy, I should be able to do those things that I’m told are allowed without later being blamed for following what I was led to believe was company policy.

                  I’ve been satisfied all along, but FWIW she has given the strongest apology to date.

                • Who in the State Department is ‘they’? Has the Department confirmed this in any way?

                  Or does Clinton just say so? And when was the claim made that State OK’do this arrangement?

                • I would not expect a “refutation” from the State Department, particularly if she exploited a loophole in the policies of the time.

                  I have seen no evidence that anyone in the State Department explained to Ms. Clinton that using a personal server for ALL email communication was acceptable. It appears to me that this blunder was her decision, perhaps exploiting a loophole in the policy as it was. Once done, it would be very hard for any State Department staffer to object. She was, after all, their boss. As such, and in the absence of an explicit prohibition, then objecting sounds like a career-limiting move to me.

                  Not prohibiting an action is very different from saying that the same action is OK.

                  I doubt that any crime was committed. I have said all along that I view this as a blunder resulting from poor judgement (perhaps influenced by her personal experience as First Lady).

                  In my view, the real issue is a question of how Ms. Clinton values her personal desire to avoid harassment against national security. That was the conflict, I think, that led to her blunder. I care rather less about an apology for something in the distant past, and rather more about a statement clarifying her priorities as president.

                  I expect national security to ALWAYS come before any personal consideration. I will feel much better if Ms. Clinton expresses her awareness and embrace of those priorities.

  3. “I disagree with the choice that I made,” she explained.

    Just what does that explain? It strikes me as a “mistakes were made” attempt to duck responsibility. To say that she “disagrees with the choice” is not the same as “I made a mistake,” and “I am sorry that this has been confusing to people” is not the same as “I’m sorry I screwed up.” That is a classic example of a non-apology.

    I am really not looking forward to an administration that won’t take the least amount of responsibility for its deliberate actions.

  5. on BMG? That sounds like sources and methods to me and potentially classifiable information. A threat to national security. Is he substituting his own opinion about what is classifiable information for the judgement of someone in the future who might decide to classify this information? Or is he just confused?

    • Why do you babble about things that you know absolutely nothing about?

      Your attempt at snark demeans you.

      • by your lack of transparency. You’re not handling this very well. Rather than dismissing your critics, I would expect you to release all your private emails and to apologize for the damage that may have done to national security.

  6. Politico.com has a tendency to blow stuff out of proportion because of its “horse race” attitude toward politics.
    This email faux scandal is basically the Benghazi committee leaking whatever it can to Politico & NYTimes & the rightwing noise machine, but they are not coming up with much. The NY Times has a history of printing false stories about Hillary. They’ve had to retract some recently.
    Hillary Clinton followed the State Dept policy when she set up her email server, as did Colin Powell & Condi Rice. The policy changed after she was out but the NYTimes reported that in such a way as to confuse people about the timeline.
    When Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s Chief of Staff) requested that her testimony be released but the Republicans on the Benghazi Cmte. won’t release it, that’s a sign that this is just another partisan witch hunt like Whitewater was. When the technical aide Bryan Pagliano pleads the 5th, he’s doing what numerous citizens did when the House Un-American Activities Cmte was hunting “Reds.” Use the Constitution to protect himself from conservatives abusing power.

    • But Hillary needs to come out and say what you just said. She should volunteer to go before the committee as a private citizen and school them like she did as Secretary before the Benghazi committee. It’s this weak, limp, refuse to talk to the media lack of response that is letting this story grow out of proportion. She should fight, when Democrats fight, they win.

    • Oh my. I read the piece, and found it reasonably typical of the Guardian.

      Seems like the biggest “news” is that she often consults with her husband (who just happens to have been the best President of my generation’s lifetime).

      Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see anything beyond the usual anti-Clinton click-bait in this piece.

Archives